From: Richard S. Holmes (rsholmes_at_MailBox.syr.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 06 2004 - 20:15:52 PST
jcm3_at_cec.wustl.edu writes: > This posting is indended as a "metagame post" as interpreted in "Re: This > is not rule 221:f VALID, +2.5". > > In support of 221:d (2 of 2), I believe it is valid: I've seen no rule submitted under the name '221:d (2 of 2)'. I have seen two posts from you titled 'anecdote 221:d'. I assume you refer to the second of these. > > Unfortunately, it can be found invalid: The last sentence implies a > > rule that is inconsistent with 221:d can still be judged valid, an > > assertion not consistent with the R.O.'s. > > A rule that finds unexpected consequences from 221:d (1 of 2) would cause > 221:d (1 of 2) to stop having an effect on the game. Future rules could > then disregard it and still be valid. I do not believe the mechanic of > rules losing their effect on the game is against the ROs - is it? It certainly is. Any rule that is inconsistent with any prior valid rule must be judged invalid; a rule that asserts otherwise is inconsistent with the ROs. > > Style: Invalid, not posted twice, and no new restriction. -2.0. > > The anecdote (and moral) contained in anecdote 221:d (2 of 2) was posted > twice, word for word, as specified in anecdote 221:e (1 of 2). So anecdote 221:d (1 of 2) was posted twice. But anecdote 221:d (2 of 2) (which contained the second posting of anecdote 221:d (1 of 2)) was not. This is moot, however, since the double posting requirement was later rejudged invalid. Style adjusted to -1.5. -- - Rich Holmes Parish, NY
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST